How Terrorism Obstructs Radical Islam

How Terrorism Obstructs Radical Islam

Daniel Pipes sees Islamist violence as counterproductive:

Do terrorist atrocities in the West, such as the attacks of September 11, 2001 and those in Bali, Madrid, Beslan, and London, help radical Islam achieve its goal of gaining power?

No, they are counterproductive. That's because radical Islam has two distinct wings - one violent and illegal, the other lawful and political - and they exist in tension with each other. The lawful strategy has proven itself effective, but the violent approach gets in its way. ...

Continue reading...

Posted by Andrew Jaffee at August 23, 2005 02:05 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/10201


Comments

1. BobW said:

Daniel Pipes produces pedantics. The material is both useless and wrong.

Radical Islam's wings are not distinct. They blend. The barbarians are using classical Communist doctrine.

What times have ever been tranquil?

For the record, Bali is not in the West.

Kol tuv,
BobW

Posted by: BobW on August 23, 2005 05:47 PM

2. sk said:

More nonsense from Pipes. The "good extremists" become "good" in comparison to the "bad extremists," who are, well, bad. The good ones say "no, no, we're a religion of peace" and disavow the bad ones. If the good ones are getting concessions had over fist, maybe the bad ones don't terrorize as much for a while, but they still terrorize some to keep attention focussed on the demands of the good ones. If there are not enough concessions, suddenly the bad ones terrorize whole-hog. The good ones retain "plausible deniability." Indifference to demands of the good ones is prevented because the bad ones terrorize.

Pipes knows this of course. I wonder what future employers he's trying to appeal to now? What a slime.

Posted by: sk on August 23, 2005 08:16 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)